Hybrid View

So you want to Judge the Ladies?

This is a different approach than before, It was icky sticky and just not as much fun as it could have been. So I am going to keep it simple.
The names are linked to YouTube (ick) so I hope you have access to the video already or you will have to deal with the pour quality. Better than nothing I 'spose.

Mathman will do the AddingJ/K I will do it ...well.... unless he wants to.

First 12 to lend their scores I will (re)post results in a neat little package.
You could cut n paste or quote and add in the quote, put your score at the end of each line - fairly self explanatory.

Just enter anything from +3 to -3 for each of the 8 elements listed, just like a Judge - your score last column. Then add the number to the PCS - in increments of .25

Those are the numbers that real judges use -- look at the protocols in the columns that break down the scores by individual judge for examples.

If there are enough judges and if someone volunteers to do the accounting, we could get final scores for the panel that resemble the final scores in a real competition after the accountants have crunched all the numbers.

But whether we get final panel marks or just the individual GOEs and components from a few Golden Skate judges, I would be interested in discussing the reasoning behind those GOEs and components.

I'll be glad to help with the math. The only thing you really need to know is how to factor and average the GOEs and PCSs after all the judges key in their scores. (If 12 people submit scores, first I'll have to do a random draw, then trim the mean, LOL.)

One suggestion. The second column of numbers that you gave us -- that IS the summary of GOEs given by the actual judging panel. If we are supposed to be the judges, we should not see these numbers. Afterward we can compute our averages and compare it to the averages of the actual judging panel. But with the numbers right there in our face, that will prejudice us -- like, I already know I am not going to make a fool of myself by giving Sokolova only a -1 GOE on her first element when I can see that most of the panel gave her a -3.

That [awarding program component scores] I thought would be optional becase the last time I did this it was asking so much. I thought I would just ask for the Judges role only this time.

Giving out PCSs (6.25, 6.50, etc., in each of the five categories) IS part of the judges role. What made it "too much to ask" was if we also had to play the tech specialist's role. too, and call the elements, together with levels.

Hehe, I love GKelly's idea to hold the judges accountable for their marks by making us explain them. NO SEKRET JUDGING!

I'll be glad to help with the math. The only thing you really need to know is how to factor and average the GOEs and PCSs after all the judges key in their scores. (If 12 people submit scores, first I'll have to do a random draw, then trim the mean, LOL.)

Your so cool, could you have your "class" do it?

Originally Posted by Mathman

One suggestion. The second column of numbers that you gave us -- that IS the summary of GOEs given by the actual judging panel. If we are suppoed to be the judges, we should not see these numbers. Afterward we can compute our averages and compare it to the averages of the actual judging panel. But with the numbers right there in our face, that will prejudice us -- like, I already know I am not going to make a fool of myself by giving Sokolova only a -1 GOE on her first element when I can see that most of the panel gave her a -3.

So I should take them out.?

Originally Posted by Mathman

Giving out PCSs (6.25, 6.50, etc., in each of the five categories IS part of the judges role. What made it "too much to ask" was if we also had to play the tech specialist's role. too, and call the elements, together with levels.

So I should put those lines Back in, and expect those too. ?
PCS does not seem that difficult.

Yes, I think so. (You can see by GKelly's post above that they caused some confusion as to whether we were trying to be "a judge" or trying to recreate the average of a whole panel of judges.)

So I should put those lines back in, and expect those too.?

Yes. Don't give any numbers, just leave five blank spaces with appropriate headings.

PCS does not seem that difficult.

Easy to do, hard to do right.

There are specific criteria for each of the five components. A judge who just says, "Fumie skated pretty, I'll give her 7.75 across the board," will have a whole lotta 'splainin' to do, once the Golden Skate Judges' Evaluation Committee declares open season. ("Transitions? What transitions?!")

I am going to be brave

As I watched I would pause after the element, and put in the score, then at the end I reflected.
It took under and hour with a break. So all of you that have your scorecards, give'm up please. You can PM me and I will put it in the first post format for you if you want - like below. Just tell me if you want to be anonymous.

Now if a self taught only recently serious about tech - trying to learn rather then just "absorb" for around a year now - is sticking my neck out I am sure a majority of you have better qualifications than I.

You can remain anonymous and I will assign a number to your "card" and if anyone has issues and you want to respond I could take your response in a PM and post it as "Judge 7" or something.